Mahaboobunnisa Begum vs The State Of Andhra,
2022 Latest Caselaw 6635 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

               WRIT PETITION No.29053 of 2022

JUDGMENT:-

1.    Heard Sri K.V.S.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for

the petitioners and Sri G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel,

representing    Sri     M.Manohar       Reddy,      learned   Standing

Counsel for respondent No.2.

2. With the consent of the parties counsels, the writ

petition is being disposed finally at this stage.

3. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India has been filed for the following relief:-

"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not taking any action to stop all activities in A.B.S Town Hall Situated in R.S.No.299 of Nidadavole in East Godavari District (Erstwhile West Godavari Dist) arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to stop all activities of illegal constructions and direct the second respondent to demolish the structure made so far without permission in the in A.B.S Town Hall situated in R.S.No.299 of Nidadavole and pass such other

order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

4. Sri K.V.S.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that the respondent No.3 raised certain

illegal constructions of commercial shopping complex without

getting any approved plan under the Andhra Pradesh

Municipalities Act, 1965 and for demolition of the same, the

petitioners approached the 2nd respondent, but no action has

been taken. In this respect he places his case on the

information received under Right to Information Act dated

30.10.2018, Ex.P4 and contends that the municipality had

not given any proposals for such construction. He further

submits that the legal notice dated 21.12.2020 given to the

Municipal Corporation, has not been paid any attention.

5. From perusal of Ex.P4, this Court finds that the

endorsement under the Right to Information Act, was given

on 30.10.2018 i.e., almost four years back. The petitioners'

legal notice was also given almost two years back.

6. In view of the above, this court is not inclined to

entertain the writ petition based on the legal notice given in

2020 and the alleged information given way back in 2018,

when the petition has been filed belatedly in the year 2022,

without there being anything to show as to what steps the

petitioners took during past many years to pursue the

matter before the 3rd respondent.

7. The writ petition is dismissed on the aforesaid ground.

8. However, if the petitioners still have any grievance

against the 3rd respondent with respect to the construction it

is open to them to approach the 2nd respondent, afresh.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any

pending, shall also stand closed.

_______________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J

Date: 09.09.2022 Ssp FFFFFFFFFHGHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGFFFKKKKKKKK KKKKKKJJJJJKFDASDFKKKKLKKLHGGGFFFFFFFDSSS SSGGGGGGGGHHHHHGHFSDAFSDAHLFJHSDFJASD

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

WRIT PETITION No.29053 of 2022

Date: 09.09.2022

ssp